Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I ask why this code of procedural and ethical guidance, neither honoured nor upheld, should not now be amended to afford some form of procedural safeguard for the impartiality of the Civil Service; for first account to Parliament of anticipatory information; and to enable an independent body to advise on non-financial conduct as proposed by standards of conduct in public life? Can resignation from public office, unless offered and accepted, could ever properly be treated as a private matter?

Lord Soley: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether he can remember any Prime Minister who, at the end of the day, after taking into account independent advice and everything else, has given up the power to select who should be and should not be in the Government? If that had been the case, can he think of anyone who would have been left in the previous Conservative Government if such advice had been given and taken?

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, are not people who continue to demand independent committees for this and independent committees for that not excessively optimistic? Can my noble friend tell me of any public inquiry on any public body that does not produce the results preconceived by those who have called for it that has not been labelled a whitewash?

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer, which is positive. I welcome it. Will she confirm that, to date, India, for example, has already committed itself to supporting a stadium for the Government of Guyana and that China is providing a stadium for Dominica? Given the terrible poverty of the Caribbean islands and the fact that tourism is a way to tackle poverty, would not a greater effort on the part of the British Government to help the islands prepare for the world cup be beneficial for the islands in tackling the poverty from which they suffer?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; I disagree with that. The problem—a problem that we have recognised—is the vast increase in criminal legal aid. Bringing that under control is the way to improve the funding of civil legal aid. Bringing that under control as well is the way to have more funding available for the courts. While that is being done through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, we need to ensure that there is proper efficiency and financial control in Her Majesty's Courts Service, which has done splendidly in delivering the finest possible quality of court administration.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has led to a diminution in the amount of money spent on personal injuries cases. Overall, since 1997, the legal aid budget has gone up by in excess of 100 per cent If there had not been that diminution in the cost of personal injuries cases, it is hard to imagine where access to justice would have been more inhibited by what happened. I shall write to my noble friend with the precise figure.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will remember the recent passage of the Identity Cards Bill. The purpose of this amendment is clear. It will ensure that the identity cards register, so eloquently opposed in this House and in another place by noble and right honourable friends, would not be able to correspond or communicate with the online record of electors.
	I am sure that some noble Lords will have followed the ID cards debate and the following questions carefully. They may therefore be surprised that I have tabled this amendment at all. On 13 February, the Government stated in a Written Answer in another place:
	"There is currently no proposal for these specifications to provide for two-way data-sharing with the proposed identity cards register".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1595W.]
	However, on 18 April, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, announced on behalf of his right honourable friend Des Browne that data from the national identity register will also be used,
	"as an adult population register . . . this should be implemented through the identity cards scheme on the basis that the scheme eventually becomes compulsory".—[Official Report, 18/4/06; col. WS 134.]
	It is my understanding that it is not currently compulsory to hold an ID card and that that provision will only apply after 2009—let us not forget that from 1 January 2009 it will be compulsory to be on the register.
	We wonder what other plans the Government have for the ID cards scheme. We learnt from the Sunday Times on 23 April that Ministers in the Home Office were considering the use of ID cards to keep health records on such things as blood groups, allergies and donor status. I understand that the Minister, Andy Burnham, does not consider that HIV and AIDS victims need to state their status at this stage. It seems that pledges from the Government on the information to be included on or excluded from the register come with a time limit.
	I remain anxious about the safety and the sensitivity of information that will be kept on CORE. It will contain a record of where one is registered to vote, and it is my understanding that there could also be a record of the marked register of postal votes. I hope that, now that we are to have CORE, once it has been established it will be a success. It would be devastating if it were to fail and adversely affect the democratic process. The potential vulnerabilities of CORE are clear. We had a full and interesting debate on the fraud implications of having an online record of electors. Noble Lords will recall the statistic from the Financial Services Authority, which tells us that fraud is rising by over 300 per cent a year.
	Despite a long debate in Committee, we have not yet heard from the Minister exactly how the CORE electoral scheme is to be run and what safeguards against fraud will be in place in whatever structure is adopted from the two models that the noble Baroness suggested at that time. Will there be one centrally run scheme for the whole country that takes information from local authorities, or will there be a comparative network between authorities?
	The consultation period on this ended on 7 March, I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide answers to these questions. That is vital information, as each system comes with its own specific vulnerability. A central scheme, once hacked into, would yield up nationwide information. A locally integrated scheme might be easier to infiltrate on a local level, but it would be more difficult to access national information in that way. Will CORE be an electronic version of what exists physically at present or will it do the thinking for the electoral registration officers in matching up data?
	This amendment is tabled in a protective spirit—not only to protect electoral information on the register, but to prevent links being made between data that could pave the way for compulsory voting or compulsory ownership of an ID card in order to vote. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to the Identity Cards Bill stood in the way of compulsory ownership of a physical ID card. But it is not difficult to imagine, in a few years, an elector being informed that he is not allowed to vote because he does not possess an ID card. More important, the vulnerability of the combined information on the CORE and the ID registers will pose a serious risk in terms of identity theft and fraud. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that such connection will be prevented in the interests of data security or that proposals for data sharing will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	It is also my understanding that the Home Office is the only department to produce costings for the identity cards scheme. Can the Minister inform the House, following the consultation, whether CORE and the NIR will link up and, if so, can she give an indication of the costs? In the event of data sharing between CORE and the ID register, which we are all trying to prevent, can the Minister state that the correspondence of information will not be used to penalise individuals in respect of voting if they have failed to keep up to date on the ID register? Would an individual be given notice that the information held on him on either register would be linked up?
	My noble friend Lord Northesk raised this point eloquently in the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill. He said that,
	"one possible reason for the provision"—
	that is, to register facts on an individual without his knowledge or consent—
	"might be to facilitate the merging of data on to the register from already existing government databases".
	My noble friend went on to say that such a linkage would be,
	"wholly antipathetic to individual privacy rights".—[Official Report, 16/11/05; col. 1691.]
	What is more, the link between CORE and the NIR would operate immediately after designation of passports.
	The information to be held on all these systems is highly sensitive. We have learnt that the NIR, the system for passports, can include not only biometric data but also health records. We need an assurance that there will not be a link-up between these systems and, in particular, that CORE will not be able to be interrogated on behalf of the other systems. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising this important issue. I will begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In his speech, there was a lot of "could", "should" and "might be". One of the critical issues that the noble Baroness rightly described in the amendment is that we should move away from "could", "should" and "might be" to being as clear as possible. I will deal with her questions as best I can and then talk about the specific details of the amendment.
	The noble Baroness is right that we have the responses to the consultation. I do not yet have a definitive statement from my honourable friend Bridget Prentice, who is the Minister responsible, on whether we should be looking for a gradual implementation or going for what one might describe as a "big bang" effect, but it is worth remembering that many registers are held electronically. Noble Lords accepted in Committee that what I was describing was not at all something that removed the power from the local level—that is the critical place where the register is held—but something that enabled the merging of these address books, if I may describe them like that, so that it would be found more valuable for the political parties, in particular, to access.
	There is no plan at this stage to go beyond that. The noble Baroness rightly raised both in Committee and in your Lordships' House today the issue of making sure that if we were to move further than that—for example, people checking that their entry was correct online—we would have to tackle fraud absolutely. Indeed, she gave the figures for the concerns of the Financial Services Authority on fraud, which we take seriously. I completely accept that point. In Committee, we talked about the possibilities of CORE. I accept that we cannot move in any direction that would enable people to use it fraudulently. However, it is meant to be a tool that is useful to, for example, the political parties and the Electoral Commission. That is how we should think about it.
	When it comes to how to consider the national identity register, I understand very well from having followed the debates in your Lordships' House and another place not just people's sensitivities about this database, but—if I might say from my experience of other pieces of legislation in which I have been involved—the general concern that data are protected properly. I am the Minister with responsibility for data protection, so I, too, take that matter seriously. The noble Baroness is right to say that one should not be able to use the register differently without parliamentary scrutiny. For example, if one wanted—I stress "if"—in the future to use the identity register to look at security checks to help to spot fraudulent or duplicate entries, one could do so only after we had followed the affirmative order procedure outlined in the Identity Cards Act as it currently stands.
	I have checked through all the possibilities that I could think of in relation to how we might link up the registers. None of them could be done without the affirmative regulation procedure. I would like to take a step further, if I might, but I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House, for I cannot do that without going back to my colleagues in the Home Office. My personal preference would be to accept the amendment, because I can see that the noble Baroness is seeking to make sure that, if we were to move in this direction, we would do so by using legislation appropriately. Noble Lords will know that there is further legislation that would need to come in.
	I cannot do that today because I would need to go back and confirm that point with colleagues. If the noble Baroness were willing to withdraw her amendment on the basis that we would have a discussion between now and Third Reading, my commitment would be that of course she should be allowed to bring it back if she felt it appropriate and if I had not resolved the issue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we debated these precise amendments in Committee and our position remains unchanged. Our concern with the funding of the CORE scheme was that local authorities were to be put under undue pressure to meet the cost of the scheme and, as a result, could be faced with making cuts in other services to finance it.
	As a background to the financial decisions to be made, the Minister informed us that models 4 and 5 in the appendices of the consultation paper were chosen as the basis of the CORE scheme. Does that mean that both models will be used, or will DCA choose between them? This has serious implications for security, as I mentioned in our earlier debate. After the Minister referred those models to us in Committee, I looked in detail at the useful diagrams of models 4 and 5 and I remain concerned about some areas.
	In model 4, the central integrity reporting repository, which I take to mean the central bank of data, would send electronic messages to local authorities if information was duplicated. I would not argue with the principle of lessening duplication on the electoral register, but I was concerned to read the following statement:
	"If a registering elector's details share sufficient similarity to an elector already registered in another locality, the Central Repository would trigger a warning if the elector is supposedly registering for the first time, or trigger a message to the old [local authority] that the voter is now registered in a different [local authority]".
	I am concerned about the potential for error in that statement. Two individuals could have very similar details, yet one could be struck off the electoral register automatically due to an overall similarity. The problem with leaving the integrity of the electoral register to a machine is that decisions are made rapidly and automatically and require a duplication of effort if the local authority personnel also have to manage the data. Moreover, the concluding sentence of the description of model 4 states that the database would not have complete integrity, as not all discrepancies will necessarily have been resolved. What is the point of having a central system at all?
	The central registry system in model 5 would ensure that discrepancies are resolved before they are officially recorded there, but that central system would be vulnerable to fraud. Where would the funding come from for the extra local authority staff needed to support the system?
	My objections to the scheme are based purely on the spirit of the protection of data. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has stated, we are supportive of creating a CORE scheme in terms of what can be achieved, but I remain unconvinced that any of the schemes proposed will be robust against fraud. In that sense, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which would ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to each stage of the CORE scheme.
	I have described the background and will move on to the substance of my amendments. They will ensure that sufficient financial provision is made available to local authorities to implement the scheme. Perhaps those words are too broad but they were intended in the most frugal sense. The scheme should be sufficiently funded so that it does not fail, but not in excess of absolute necessity. That provision would be made following the assessment of costs. While the amendments would not write a blank cheque for the CORE scheme, they would ensure that there is not another situation like the recent council tax revaluation computer scheme which has accumulated substantial costs but is still not yet up and running.
	I confess that I am still a bit confused by the Minister's comments in Committee, when she stated that £10 million was the cap for setting up the scheme, because that was the amount available. But she went on to say that she would not rule out looking at the matter again. If, when the scheme was being set up, something emerged that might clearly be of additional benefit, it might cost more. I stated in Committee that Essex County Council, of which I am leader, had to find several hundred thousand pounds more to run last year's elections. That is just one local authority, and I am concerned about local authority services overall.
	A few more figures were presented, but again I struggle to see exactly where they are going. I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to provide more clarity. Let me suggest my understanding of the funding proposals. Of the £20 million needed to set up the scheme, £17 million represents additional costs to local authorities. I understand that they will be provided to implement the scheme. Even though we do not know what the secondary legislation measures might be, the remaining £3.8 million or so will be given to local authorities if necessary. Overall, in England, the scheme looks set to cost, at the very least, £30 million. That is not to mention the £1.2 million which has already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, and the £2.9 million transferred to Scotland, where almost £5 million is therefore in pre-emptive funding.
	Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 would ensure that there was proper financial consultation on the face of the Bill to ensure that the base cost does not accumulate over time. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the orders made under subsection (1) were made only under the terms of subsection (1) and would restrict the broad legal application to the power to make a different provision for different purposes. I hope that these amendments are clear to the Minister, even if they are complicated in their presentation. I think she knows what I mean by them, however. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I appreciate entirely that he speaks with great authority from his position as leader of a local authority. Indeed, I understand the issue very well. There is a genuine concern for the noble Lord and those involved in local government to ensure that this scheme is funded properly, and that they do not find themselves with a need to find consequential funding. That could, as the noble Lord rightly indicated, have an impact on services available to local people. In a nutshell, that is what I see lies behind the noble Lord's specific amendments.
	As I indicated, although the consultation has closed, we have not yet decided on the model. The noble Lord made very important points about the critical nature of electronic data being held centrally; about making sure that the models themselves were proofed against fraud; and making sure that the systems work effectively. I will ensure that those are fed into the discussions on the consultation. It is important that we keep noble Lords who have been involved in this legislation absolutely up to date with the thinking as we develop CORE, for the expertise is clearly in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will know that in Committee we talked about some of the funding questions. I will just run through them so that they are on the record, on Report, in your Lordships' House. However, it is against the principle which the noble Lord rightly identified of wanting to ensure that we fund CORE properly so that it is dealt with as a separate item and is not a drain on resources from local government.
	I will run through those issues because in Committee we talked more generally about the Bill costs. We estimate the cost of implementing the measures in England and Wales to be about £20 million. As the noble Lord indicated, most of this, £17 million, represents additional costs to local authorities. An additional £3.8 million will be made available to local authorities for the cost of the secondary legislation measures. Some £19.9 million has been transferred into revenue support grant to cover the new burdens imposed on local authorities by the measures and by the secondary legislation package. An additional £1.2 million has been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales for the implementation of the measures there.
	The noble Lord knows well the Government's policy on ring-fencing. We will not be ring-fencing this. We recognise that it is important that returning officers and registration officers receive adequate funding to enable them to implement the measures. Clause 63 provides for the Electoral Commission to collate centrally information from local authorities on their spending on elections and registrations. It is the first time that information will be collected in such a way and it is an important part of ensuring that we develop policy appropriately in future. Incidentally, the Scottish Executive have £2.9 million in Barnett consequential, for the implementation of those measures which extend to Scotland. The point about CORE, as I indicated, is that it brings together information in order to make it easy for the organisations which are allowed to access the 400 or so separate electoral registers. As I indicated, that is supported by all the political parties.
	As the noble Lord has indicated, each electoral registration officer will need to provide CORE with data output in a consistent format. Since 2004, we have supported implementation with funding of about £1 million to third-party software vendors and individual electoral registration officers to ensure that their systems can output data in the agreed standardised output format—which is electoral markup language, I am told.
	We have also sought specialist advice from the Office of Government Commerce on ensuring that we have the appropriate governance, assurance and procurement arrangements. As noble Lords will know from Committee, £10 million of capital modernisation funding has been approved for CORE, although the procurement approach will include a market sounding phase to test the preferred approach to procuring and implementing CORE and to refine the cost estimates. We are committed to continuing to support CORE when it is fully implemented, including funding new burdens. I have made that as clear as I can for the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	I want to make a further point, which I hope will also provide reassurance for the noble Lord. We do not expect any aspect of CORE to be burdensome to electoral registration officers. They will continue to collate their registers and publish them on a monthly basis. The difference will be that, as well as publishing the register locally, they will provide an update to the CORE system. That should be as simple as a few mouse clicks or an automated system. Therefore, we do not anticipate there being an administrative burden, which, as the noble Lord will be the first to say, we need to consider in cost terms apart from anything else.
	As I have indicated, we have set money aside in the Bill for local government and for CORE, and we do not see the scheme being administratively burdensome in any way. I have also indicated that, should there be additional costs because of changes that might be made, we will fund them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will have a smile in his heart in recognising that this is not in any way meant to be burdensome, financially or administratively, to local government, and that is our commitment. We anticipate this being a useful tool that political parties and the Electoral Commission will find of great value.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I briefly rise to support my noble friend Lord Norton. This fits in with the earlier part that I talked about in my amendment, and I hope the Government will support the comments that my noble friend has just made.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his well-targeted amendment. As he indicated, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. I said then that I agreed with the spirit of the proposal, but I felt that the requirement for a formal evaluation was perhaps disproportionate, given that the CORE scheme orders will already be subject to affirmative resolution. Yet, since I said that I agree with the spirit of the proposal, and since the noble Lord has brought this forward again—I have had the benefit of discussing it with him as well, for which I am grateful—perhaps I may suggest a compromise.
	As the noble Lord knows and has indicated, under Section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Electoral Commission to produce a report on any subject. If the noble Lord were willing to withdraw his amendment, I could give a commitment that if an incremental approach is taken to implementation we will ask the commission to publish an evaluation of the initial scheme before we bring any subsequent order before Parliament. I think that that meets the noble Lord's objective. I hope he will accept that my commitment is made on behalf of the Government—we will do it—and so will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, putting an amendment on the face of the Bill is a means to an end; a ministerial statement also is a means to an end. The end in this particular case is ensuring that the initial CORE scheme is subject to a thorough review. I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances and constructive response and for putting it on the record. I am content that it serves to meet the goal that we share. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is nothing between the noble Lords on both Front Benches and myself in what we seek to do. I would merely argue that what we have done in the Bill achieves what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks. Let me attempt to convince her of that.
	Clause 9 is designed to encourage electoral registration officers to maximize the number of eligible electors who register. Noble Lords will know that in the September 2005 report Understanding Electoral Registration, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2000 there were 3.5 million people in England and Wales, which is 8 to 9 per cent of the eligible population, who were not registered to vote. The new duty clause is there to make it clear that EROs should do all that they can to tackle what we have all identified, and I think we all recognise, as the real problem—that of under-registration.
	Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already requires registers to be accurate. I sought the advice of parliamentary counsel because, as noble Lords have rightly indicated, this is a clear and obvious step. Parliamentary counsel was very clear that, as a matter of law, the provision does all that is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the registers. Subsection (2)(a) requires the registers to contain,
	"the names of the persons . . . entitled to be registered".
	That means that if a person is entitled to be registered, his name must be on the register. If a person is not entitled to be registered, his name must not be on the register. Parliamentary counsel's advice and legal support says that the law is completely clear on this point.
	Clause 9 builds on Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by requiring EROs to take certain minimum steps to ensure that eligible persons who meet the necessary requirements set out under the clause are included on registers. They already have certain powers to remove ineligible persons from the register in specified circumstances. So, for example, where the elector moves to another local authority, and where the ERO receives official notification from the elector's new ERO that the elector no longer resides at an address in their area, he will be removed. Removal can be done via the monthly update to the register, and can take three to six weeks, as noble Lords will know, depending on what stage in the electoral cycle the decision is taken.
	Clause 12(5) imposes a duty on EROs to remove from the register persons who are not, or are no longer, eligible to be registered to vote. Clause 12 strengthens the ERO's removal powers by enabling them to act upon any objections made to a person's entry on the register, and to initiate an investigation into a person's entry on the register if the ERO is in doubt about whether the person is entitled to be registered. We think that the combination of the new duty clause and Clause 12, linked back to Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, build the picture noble Lords seek, which is to ensure the registers are complete and accurate. The difficulty comes from looking at legislation in isolation, which is why I went back to parliamentary counsel and asked him to demonstrate to me that if you add in these new issues and areas, in a sense you have a complete picture, and not the picture that the noble Baroness fears is skewed in one direction and not the other.
	I was convinced by parliamentary counsel. I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is no question but that the objective is shared between us and that the noble Baroness's concerns are of critical importance. Only those eligible to vote should be on the register. We believe that when noble Lords look back at the 1983 Act, they will see that the definitions ensure that registers are complete and accurate, which is what we all want to achieve.
	I hope that, on the basis that we have looked very carefully at the matter and are convinced that we now have a balanced approach, the noble Baroness will feel reassured and able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is not a tissue paper's thickness between me and the noble Lord, Lord Garden on this issue. Indeed, we jostled to be first on the Marshalled List to move the amendments. He won this time, but may not do so on another occasion. I joke only about that, because this is a very important issue to which we return.
	I acknowledge the discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has had and the work that he has done, but I remind the House that when the Bill started in the House of Commons it was Members of my party who started the attack on the fact that service voting was a shambles. We received assurances from the then Solicitor General, Harriet Harman, that this matter would be looked at. She accepted that there was a problem and hoped that things could be put right in the House of Lords. That was the situation as the Bill left the House of Commons.
	We are now on Report and we are still without anything from the Government that suggests that we are likely to achieve what I know the Minister is now utterly convinced that we will achieve one way or another before this Bill leaves this House; that is, the measures which we are putting forward today in both these amendments. The two amendments are companionable and fit together to ensure, first, the proper registration of service voters and, consequently and secondly, a proper system to enable service voters to vote.
	It is the fault of the Representation of the People Act 2000 that what was a perfectly well tried and tested system of service voting came unstuck. The amendment would have that Act overturned to enable us to return to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which placed a duty on the appropriate government department to ensure that members of the Armed Forces were given an effective opportunity to exercise their right to vote. You cannot exercise your right to vote if you are not registered. If you are being moved around the world, from one place to another, and you do not know from one year to the next where you are going to be, it is exceedingly difficult, unless somebody helps you, to have an effective opportunity to exercise your vote because you are not registered.
	So, we are far down the line now. Amendment No. 15 is tabled in conjunction with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who rightly stated in Committee that these are not either/or amendments. They work entirely in tandem, as I have said, which is why there is not a tissue paper between us.
	We should notice that the number of service personnel registered has fallen by 120,000 since the 2000 Act. There were 140,000 service voters registered, but at the 2005 election—as far as anyone knew, given the way that registrations are now spattered around the place—only 25,000 members of the Armed Forces were in a position to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has stated, the explanation of how they should have been able to vote arrived, together with the leaflets and their postal votes, within 10 days of voting taking place. That was far too late for anybody to do anything about it, so there was complete disenfranchisement of our service personnel. If we can get such personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan to defend democracy in those countries, then there must surely be a way to enable them to take part in the democratic process.
	There is a mismatch between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which was responsible for the Representation of the People Act 2000, and the Ministry of Defence, which has decided that it is just an ordinary employer—and, as such, has no responsibility to ensure that its personnel are registered. Since members of the Armed Forces relinquish a proportion of their civil liberties in order to establish democratic rights overseas and defend liberties at home, it is ironic that they should be the single most disenfranchised group at the last election.
	I know that the Minister has made efforts to persuade the Ministry of Defence to achieve the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and myself. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I am extremely disappointed that today we have only a wimpish amendment from the Government to extend the registration of service voters from one year to five on an ordinary register. We need more than that; a proper amendment, to bring us back to where we all know we ought to be. Service voters ought to be guaranteed the right to vote by their employer, which is the country.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I add my support to the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden. I speak as a former Adjutant-General, where I was head of personnel to the Army. In that post I was responsible for personnel matters including the registration of people for election. All I can say is that up until then we were concerned that the difficulties being put in the way of service men made it virtually impossible for them to vote, and that we were pleased about the progress being made to enable them to do so through the use of proxy and postal voting. It was therefore disappointing to see that what we had achieved had been reversed. While I was in post, we proposed that the measures now being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, should be implemented by the Ministry of Defence. They would aid the whole process of registration and it was perfectly possible to do this within the chain of command operated by the Ministry of Defence. No other ministry needed to be involved.
	I hope very much that the Government will accept these amendments, thus enabling the effective enfranchisement of service men in the future.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, we still have to come to postal voting, about which Her Majesty's Government are obsessed, but the weaknesses of which were further exposed in the local government elections held a week and half ago. I declare a forward interest in that matter as a voter in Tower Hamlets and, I have to say, as a voter in person. Sixty or so years ago, the then Home Secretary Herbert Morrison went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that British service men abroad were able to vote in the 1945 general election, so much so that although polling day was 5 July 1945, to enable the votes to arrive the results were not actually counted until 26 July. As my noble friend said from the Front Bench, Her Majesty's Government are asking a lot of British service men today, so it does not seem too much to ask of Her Majesty's Government that they should make it possible for service men fighting in the interests of democracy to able to vote in the democratic process itself. Anything short of that is a casual insult. For the reasons given on all sides of the House I do not hold the Minister herself responsible, but she must remember a service man's metaphor: the Minister in the front line for the particular period carries the responsibility on behalf of the whole of Her Majesty's Government at that stage.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is probably an overlap between this group of amendments, which is enormous, and the following group. In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak to my amendments in the group and see how it goes, as we are in an interesting situation.
	The amendments are rather mixed, and I do not intend to spend too much time going through them. I think that there has been a mistake with a few of them: Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 appear to duplicate Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, so I shall not move one pair. Due to the consequences of the Government's position on clause stand part, I am afraid that the thrust behind this group of amendments has disappeared. However, I would like to speak to them to debate the issues that would have been addressed were Clause 13 to survive.
	There is the welcome addition of Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, which is why there is an overlap between the groups. That amendment proposes having personal identifiers on all postal votes; it would be a positive addition to the Bill, but we are not sure that it goes far enough. A few amendments in the group are covered by Amendment No. 26, and I shall not move them. Amendment No. 29 would ensure that the Secretary of State would not have the power to repeal provisions made for personal identifiers. That worry has now disappeared, so we will not be pursuing the amendment. The aims of Amendments Nos. 30, 33 and 88 have been achieved by the noble Lord's proposals. The rest of the amendments in the group stand.
	Amendment No. 31 comes back to the discussion that we had in Committee with regard to electors who do not correctly answer the questions put to them at the polling station. Under this proposal, they would be provided with a tendered ballot paper that would allow their vote to be counted only where the result is so close that it is considered a dead heat. Amendment No. 31 would leave out that provision so that, if an elector provided the wrong answer to a date of birth question, for example, they would not be allowed to vote. The amendment was tabled in order to ensure that there was no way that anyone could steal another's vote, even if it was only a tendered ballot paper. After further consideration, I think that it comes down to the question of whether tendered ballots are correct in principle. It is easy to imagine a situation where the electoral register has registered a date of birth incorrectly, which would result in a voter being disenfranchised were it not for the tendered ballot as a last resort.
	The question posed by the amendment is "Do we give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to use a tendered ballot, even though there is a strong possibility that they may not be the person that they claim to be, or do we crack down completely on fraud and state that it is a civil duty on an individual to ensure that their details are correct on the register?". I am tempted to err on the side of caution, but that may be tested on hearing the Minister's response. I apologise for that preamble to the main point of the amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 would introduce personal identifiers on all postal and proxy votes and come with a proviso. The electoral registration officer would have a duty to consider the effect of personal identifiers on the electorate in subsection (2), which is a position that we are prepared to take if the amendment to which we will come later, on all-out individual registration, is not accepted.
	Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 96 would introduce national insurance numbers into the requirements for registration for postal voting, while Amendment No. 28 would include personal identifiers as a requirement for registering to vote in the normal way. Amendment No. 28 is intended to have the same effect as adding in national insurance numbers to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, but we were keen to table as early as possible and decided not to table more amendments at the same time.
	It is a point about which we on these Benches feel strongly. Noble Lords will recall the discussion in Committee on national insurance numbers. In our meetings since Committee, the Minister has said that it might be worth talking to the Electoral Commission on the matter. Northern Ireland has tried and tested the use of national insurance numbers, and it has been a great success, so I wonder whether the Minister has any further thoughts on potential consultation.
	We had a long discussion on signatures in Committee. I suggested that they were not robust in and of themselves. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has seen fit to introduce both signature and date of birth in his amendment. It is important that both of those should be there. However, we still feel that national insurance numbers are used by anyone who claims benefits, student loans and so on and would be a useful addition.
	I would like to make it clear that using identity cards for registration purposes and using national insurance numbers are different proposals, and I would not advocate the use of the former. National insurance numbers already exist and are in use. Most important, they do not represent biometric data, so they would not be the intrusive information contained on the ID cards. The crucial point is that they are already in circulation for a number of bureaucratic functions and they are entirely unique.
	I am raising in the amendments the possibility that the use of identifiers in postal votes should ultimately be extended generally by order and that we will be considering further the use of national insurance numbers, but that will possibly come later with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25, 41, 95, 119 and 124 in this group stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. With the leave of the House, I will speak to all of them. In doing so, however, it will also be necessary for me to discuss some issues relating to the next group, which includes Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 and 121 in our name.
	The Government are now substantially altering their original position on this part of the Bill. Their position was that Clause 13 provided for what is a form of individual registration, because each elector had to provide personal identifiers—their signature and date of birth—before they could be entered on the register. We agreed that it was not necessary to include national insurance numbers as personal identifiers. We accepted that there were special reasons that made it appropriate in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain.
	The Government originally made it clear that Clause 13 would not be brought into effect without piloting, as provided for by Clauses 15 to 18. We were unhappy with these proposals in two respects. First, we believed that individual registration, or at least household registration forms signed by each member of the household who was being registered, were essential and should not be delayed pending pilots. We therefore objected to the proposal for pilot schemes, which might take some years to evaluate. The pilots have in fact now disappeared. However, we recognised that some delay was necessary before individual registration for everyone involving personal identifiers could be brought into force. We therefore pressed for transitional arrangements, as proposed by the Electoral Commission, requiring applications for postal or proxy votes to contain identifiers before it was possible to roll out Clause 13 in full.
	The Government have now dropped Clause 13, and have therefore eliminated from the Bill any provision bringing in individual registration with personal identifiers for all electors. That remains a matter of concern to us. If, as I understand they intend to, the Government accept the noble Lord, Lord Elder's amendment, they have also agreed that applicants for absent votes must provide personal identifiers. The Government have therefore in effect accepted the transitional arrangements but removed the objective for which the transition was originally proposed: that is, registration with personal identifiers for everyone on the register. Under this Bill, it will be registration only for those who apply for absent votes.
	We therefore have one step, in the removal of the proposal for pilot schemes, in the right direction, and one step, in the removal of Clause 13, which we see as being in the wrong direction, because it means that further primary legislation will be necessary before it is possible to bring into effect the provision by all people on the electoral register of personal identifiers.
	There is no doubt that electoral fraud has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. There were serious problems, which we are all aware of, in the local elections in 2005, and there have been a number of allegations of fraud in this year's local elections, though investigations into those are still ongoing.
	Postal voting is the most obvious sources of fraud, and requiring personal identifiers will diminish it. It is not the only cause of fraud, though. For example—and there are a number of other ways of doing this—it is possible to register imaginary people as living at a particular address, and then get someone not on the register in that district or constituency to cast a vote in their name at a polling station. Requiring personal identifiers would not make that impossible, but would make it easier to detect and would deter it.
	We would therefore have preferred to keep Clauses 13 and 14 on the face of the Bill, while removing Clauses 15 to 18, but to add our own amendments to create the transitional arrangements as proposed by the Electoral Commission. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elder, supported our Amendment No. 41, but has now produced in his own name Amendment No. 26, which leads to the next group and which would require personal identifiers to be given when an absent vote application is made.
	The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, would be entirely appropriate, as the Bill abandons the concept of personal identifiers for all registered electors. However, we are seriously concerned about the abandonment of the general requirement for personal identifiers. We have not been consulted by the Government on that, and I would like to know why. If there is no satisfactory answer, we may move our own amendment. If we are satisfied with the Government's answer, we will support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and the government amendments in the following group.
	I should add that Amendment No. 95 is independent of the other amendments in this group. Clause 37 inserts a new rule into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which requires a postal voting statement to be in the prescribed form, including a provision for the form to be signed. Surely, it should also include, as Amendment No. 95 proposes, the voter's personal identifier and the voter's date of birth.
	I am sorry that the noble Baroness is surprised by the fact that I have received no element of consultation on this, but I can assure her that I have not. It is possible that it was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and, as a result of his attendance at a conference abroad, failed to get through to me, but it certainly did not reach me.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, courtesy of the Sunday papers, I have learned in the past 24 hours that the former chief executive of Birmingham, where fraud in electoral matters was widespread in the course of the past couple of years, has now become the director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
	I am conscious that I may be unduly subject to ad hominem or ad mulierem arguments. However, as an inner city MP, I had experience of that directorate for four awful years between 1997 and 2001, first with a Minister who left the Government, after which I had zero confidence in the Minister who succeeded him; and, secondly, in the new Parliament, with the Prime Minister running out of confidence in that Minister's successor, who had to leave the Government in the same way. I was immensely relieved when Mr Desmond Browne MP was then given the responsibility to the House on behalf of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and I am delighted at his subsequent rapid promotion in this Parliament, first to Chief Secretary and now to Secretary of State for Defence.
	What we debated at Second Reading was such an awful a story, in the context of the Bill, that one could not help feeling that anything would be better. I have been delighted by the insistence from those on these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposed improvement in terms of the next set of elections. I have referred to my attitude to the right honourable Desmond Browne MP, as he now is. As demonstrated on a series of occasions, even in the conduct of this Bill, I have great respect for the Minister and I retain the confidence that she will see intelligent reason in at least some of the heterogeneous amendments in this group.

Lord Elder: My Lords, I rise somewhat tentatively, because these two groups of amendments seem to be coming together and it seems appropriate to speak to Amendment No. 26 now, but if any noble Lord wishes to stop me, perhaps this would be a good time to do so. Some helpful things have been said about my Amendment No. 26, so perhaps I should proceed.
	My amendment seeks to resolve serious questions that have arisen on the integrity of the absent voting system. We all accept that they must be resolved. My amendment proposes two identifiers and I happily accept that case—signature and date of birth—attached to every application for postal, proxy and proxy postal votes. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment deal with absent voters for a definite or indefinite period, for a particular election and for proxy postal votes. The requirement for an applicant to provide a signature if there is any disability or inability to do so is dispensed with, and EROs are required to keep such records for checking them against actual votes.
	Subsection (4) deals with circumstances where new signatures are required, whether as a result of a change of name or change of signature over time, and sets out the circumstances in which the identifiers can be made available to others—notably to other EROs and to candidates and agents in elections, to help them inspect the evidence in the event that votes are disputed with the returning officer.
	The separation of absent voters as an issue from the more general question of individual registration is the right way forward. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, and, to some extent, he was following the line of argument originally used by the Electoral Commission, which, more or less, was that the clearing up of postal votes could be achieved only if there was individual registration across the whole country. I never believed that that was the case and this is a more sensible way to proceed. It is the question of postal voting that needs to be resolved. There have been no corresponding doubts about the validity of voting at polling stations.
	In the meantime, there will quite enough for electoral registration officers to do as regards CORE, the other changes in the Bill—such as setting performance standards for EROS—and with the nationwide introduction of individual registration for all absent voters. It is not appropriate or sensible to pile too much by way of new responsibilities and requirements on people and changes such as individual registration should be introduced gradually and more sensibly. I have always imagined that the Electoral Commission, following this change in postal voting and the other changes in the Bill, would want to reflect—and should reflect—on what that would mean for future registration. I would expect the commission to come back with further recommendations. It might then look at the best way of introducing individual registration—I do not know and I would not wish to pre-judge that, but Amendment No. 26 would provide the right degree of scale and evidence on which the commission could make further recommendations.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the proposals concerning absent voters were much discussed in Grand Committee and there was general support for them. I appreciate that she and some of her colleagues wish to add a third identifier. I do not agree with that, although I know that the Liberal Democrats very much wanted to fit that in, so that postal voting would be one of the outcomes of individual registration rather than an end in itself. Despite that, I hope that there is general agreement on the need to clear up the biggest single problem in terms of perceptions of honesty and integrity in the system—which, I believe, my amendment would achieve. In due course, we may see what the Electoral Commission might say.
	My final point in relation to future developments, if my amendment is accepted, is that it is important that, whatever the future government regulations will be as to how many votes should be checked, that it should be done evenly across the whole country. I have no doubt that it should be done at a 100 per cent level to start with. If there is a decision to reduce that, it should not be targeted at constituencies where there are doubts, but be carried out absolutely fairly and absolutely across the whole country.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we now have the confusion that I thought we were getting into; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that we moved all these amendments together. Perhaps it would be helpful if I responded to the amendments that I have spoken to and took out the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate stage that we are perfectly in agreement with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It moves us a long way forward, in that we now would have two identifiers on postal or proxy voting. This does not mean that I might not come back to the situation on national insurance numbers at another stage.
	However, for today's purposes, there seems to me to be agreement that it is important that there should at least be identifiers of a signature and a date of birth. That is one of the stumbling blocks that we have all seen in this part of the Bill. I am happy to accept that that is the situation. If I try to push it a bit further at the next stage, that is up to me. We have moved a long way down the road with this amendment. I am glad that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder—and my amendment at an earlier stage—were sufficiently coherent to have been able to do that.
	A number of the other amendments, which I have tabled, are on national insurance registration, but I will not bother with those again today. For the others, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for helping to resolve this. Confusion is not involved; it is simply that there is a big debate to be had. I want to say a couple of things for the benefit of any noble Lord who, perhaps, was not around in Grand Committee, and who is possibly slightly confused about what the different issues are. The principle addressed by the Bill, and in the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, is about how one uses personal identifiers—which could be signatures or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposed, national insurance numbers—to enable us to tackle this fundamental problem of fraud. A number of ways of doing this have arisen in our deliberations, as have a number of ways of how we test or roll out these ideas.
	Noble Lords will know that the Government's position was that we felt very strongly about the impact of putting a personal identifier across the board for the registration of voting, having consulted with a range of people, particularly those in another place who are elected and who understand the issues well but also many others. There was a genuine concern that, unless remedial action was taken against it, we could find that the numbers of those who would register would fall. That is not something we wish to see happen in a democracy. The Government's original answer was to pilot it to see what they can find out. Noble Lords will know that there were many debates about how one got the right kind of pilot in the right kind of area to get a genuine reflection of what would happen if there was a national roll-out. There were great difficulties—I will not go into the detail—which noble Lords explored fully in Grand Committee.
	The other proposal from the Electoral Commission, supported in your Lordships' House, was the idea of the transitional system. That was, essentially, a voluntary system, where you could choose to put down your personal identifier. I have always felt a difficulty with that because, as it is voluntary, you cannot test it; those people who are quite comfortable with putting down additional information will do so, while those who are not will not. Also, at a time when we are trying to simplify the process—not least for the forms that people receive—we would have the situation where, instead of saying on the form, "Please fill in the following information", it would say, "Please fill in the following information, but not if you do not want to". It did not actually get us very far—I feel very strongly about this—it involves genuine, proper research into understanding what people do. The only argument for it would be that people might get used to it. The people who might get used to it, however, are those who would do it anyway. It does not give us what we really need.
	In all our discussions, we return time and again to the critical issue of postal voting. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, again raised this issue with us today. I know that there is great concern right across the House about these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, tabled his amendment, which I know is an amendment that transmogrified from that of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—he is not with us today as he is visiting exotic places, I understand—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This is, in a sense, a collective amendment. I hope that my noble friend will not mind my saying that, but it is based on what has been done across all the political parties in the best tradition of our parliamentary system.
	The amendment is of great interest to us. We have discussed it with the Electoral Commission and have also had the benefit of discussing it with noble Lords. It tackles the question of postal voting by putting in additional safeguards. I agree with my noble friend that, to begin with, the system should be checked 100 per cent but, if it becomes obvious that we do not need to do so in the future, we should have the capacity to reconsider that and save electoral registration officers time and energy. But certainly we must begin the process from that presumption. The amendment gives us a fantastic test-bed in looking at how personal identifiers work in a particular way and then looking at the system again.
	So, in responding to that point and to the large amount of criticism surrounding the pilot schemes, we accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder. We know that there is a great deal of support for the amendment in your Lordships' House and we recognise that it should be seen to be accepted by Parliament, as opposed to merely the Government. The system should be evaluated properly as it has the potential to tell us about the use of personal identifiers. We need to address how to tackle registration if people are concerned or confused about what they have to do, and the amendment would enable us to move forward in the right and appropriate way. As this issue is so important, we felt that that was how it should be pursued. We would be able to come back at another stage with further legislation, if appropriate, to bring in any schemes that we felt were right and proper. That is where we have got to in approaching this matter.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—he is right to say that I did not discuss these issues with him properly. I hope he will accept that I discussed them with his noble friend Lord Rennard on a number of occasions before I realised that he would not be present for this stage of the Bill. However, I did not do what I should have done, and which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will accept I usually do—that is, to pursue them with him. I think that his noble friend will agree that I tried to go through these matters in detail; none the less, it is not good enough and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	That is the basic principle behind these groups of amendments. The noble Baroness has indicated that she will not pursue the issue of the national insurance number at this point, so I shall not go into why we think there would be difficulties with that. We can refer to that issue on another occasion. I hope that I have identified for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the approach that we have taken and our reasons for following this route. I genuinely believe that, by accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elder—if your Lordships agree to do so—we will have done something extremely important in dealing with fraud in an area where people are greatly and rightly concerned. I know that the Electoral Commission will, with our support, consider the information very carefully to ensure that in future we can come back to the very important issue of personal identifiers and deal with it properly in legislation before your Lordships' House, if that seems to be the right thing to do.

Deputy Speaker: My Lords, this is not an intervention, which is not allowed. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, say anything in reply to Amendment No. 24?

Lord Elder: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"ABSENT VOTING: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
	(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (application for absent vote for definite or indefinite period)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(c) after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
	"(8) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
	(9) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (8) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
	(10) The record kept under sub-paragraph (9) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(2) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule (application for absent vote at particular election)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(c) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
	(6) The registration officer must keep a record of those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures."
	(7) The record kept under sub-paragraph (6) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(3) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (application for proxy postal vote)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) after sub-paragraph (10) (as inserted by section 38(6)(b) of this Act) insert—
	"(11) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (5)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability."
	(12) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (11) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
	(13) The record kept under sub-paragraph (12) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(4) After paragraph 7 of that Schedule insert—

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment deals with individual registration, which was briefly touched on in the previous debate. We still think that it would be helpful to have individual voter registration across the country, bypassing the traditional provisions of the pilot scheme to which the Minister has already referred. As she knows, I am delighted that her department have agreed to abandon the majority of the pilot schemes by removing half the sections in the Bill. The introduction of photographs on ballot papers does not meet with my approval, but at least it is not a pilot scheme that directly interferes with the voting process.
	This amendment is tabled with pragmatism at its heart. We on these Benches entirely advocate individual registration and if we could implement that tomorrow we would. I would like to be clear on that point. We no longer live in a society with a head of household in every house. Apart from there being many houses of multiple occupancy—for example, student halls and care homes—increasingly families are splitting up, people are living with their partners in complete equality, and nobody considers themselves in charge of the home above anybody else. As the Electoral Commission says,
	"the current system of household registration is outdated and open to . . . error".
	Individual registration should go beyond just postal voting. It is about creating a culture of civic responsibility in which "one man, one vote" is the absolute guiding principle. I know that the Electoral Commission is in full support of this, and will just remind the House what it says.
	"Without individual registration it is not possible to carry out reliable checks to prevent postal fraud, or to introduce new methods of voting which will promote participation".
	While we are thrilled that the pilot schemes have been abandoned, we would encourage the Government to go much further and demonstrate a fresh approach to the electoral system. Individual registration in Ireland has improved the whole culture of voting. A Commons committee on Northern Ireland affairs stated that it has,
	"served to increase the level of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process".
	I hope that this amendment will be supported, and for an acceptance that household registration is out of date and fails to recognise the importance of each single voter. We do not need a drastic change in the principle of our electoral system, merely a fresh way of implementing its basic functions, which have been moved a stage forward by the amendments we have just agreed to. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I think I indicated during my speech in the debate on the group starting with Amendment No. 24, we entirely agree with this in principle. We cannot support this amendment because—I can say as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee—this leaves too much to secondary legislation and we need a provision that looks much more like Clause 13. For example, there is a reference to "individual voter registration" but there is no obligation to include personal identifiers. Having said that, I entirely support the principle behind the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for tabling the amendment. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Delegated Powers Committee might blanche at the breadth of this—and noble Lords would be right to be concerned about the breadth of it—it is important that we have the debate.
	The Government have said that we accept the principle behind individual registration. We have accepted the practical value that the use of personal identifiers might have in combating fraud. But we have also said—and I think I indicated this in my comments on the earlier group—that it is an important part of how we operate in our democracy that we make sure that everyone who is entitled to register to vote is registered. We know—do we not?—that under-registration disenfranchises individuals and sometimes skews the map of political representation.
	The Northern Ireland example is often cited on both sides of this debate. It is often seen as a tried and tested system of individual registration, and it has led to benefits, particularly in terms of the perceived security of the electoral process. But it is not true to say that the experience in Northern Ireland argues for the system in place there to be extended to the rest of the UK. In fact, due to concerns about under-registration in Northern Ireland, a Bill is currently in the other place to amend its registration system to ensure that the electoral register is made both secure and comprehensive.
	The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would abolish the annual canvass. Once registered, a person would remain on the register until he changed address. Increased data-sharing would help keep the register up-to-date, but if it became inaccurate, the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland would conduct a full canvass.
	We hope that these proposals will improve the quality of the electoral register, responding to the lessons learnt about individual registration in Northern Ireland. However, we also believe that the need for this legislation shows clearly that we need to do more work before we extend it to the rest of the UK.
	The Electoral Commission found that 3.5 million people in England and Wales cannot vote in elections because they are not registered; and we believe that if we do not get implementation of electoral registration right now we could make the situation worse. When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, the registration levels dropped by around 10 per cent In one Belfast ward the registration dropped from an already low 41 per cent to just 23 per cent Such a situation is unacceptable. Although this is an extreme example, and I am always wary of quoting extreme examples, it is worth making the point that we have to do this very carefully. This is about our democracy, which I believe is the most precious thing we have. We cannot allow a situation in which areas are almost "democracy deserts" to continue in that vein.
	I understand that individual registration has benefits in relation to security; in particular through the collection of personal identifiers such as a signature and date of birth. Because we can see the benefit, we believe the way forward is to adopt the amendment of my noble friend Lord Elder, as the House has, to look at the situation very carefully and to see what we can learn from it. We want to pursue the issues of under-registration and personal identification in a measured way with, I hope, as much support on all sides of your Lordships' House as we possibly can. For that reason we have taken the approach that we have.
	I fully accept and understand the concerns of noble Lords and where they would wish us to be. However, we are now in a good and positive place with this legislation and can say that we have a way forward that will give us greater security in postal voting and a greater understanding of personal identification that will enable us to come back to this matter either with other legislation or in debates in your Lordships' House.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her reply on the amendment. I think that I am bound to repeat the two concerns about the register. The worry about individual registration from the Minister's point of view is that it will reduce the number on the register because people will not register. My worry is that it will not take off the register people who are not entitled to be on it. Somewhere, there must be a middle road here where we can join hands to say that we have got it right.
	As things stand, the registration of a house in multiple occupation is left to the owner. Often, the question is: who is the owner and who does the owner think is in the property? I am sure that the noble Baroness will have experienced occasions when a house that could not conceivably house more than 10 people shows 40 people on the register. At least 20 of them should not be on the register and one wonders how they got there. There is more behind this than is being accepted by the Minister. For that reason, I shall not give up entirely and may well return to it at our final stage. However, for today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment and we want to encourage young people to interest themselves in the political system. We also agree that we should fully appreciate the enormous contribution made by young people to our society. However, we do not believe that lowering the voting age to 16 would achieve either of those ambitions. We find ourselves unconvinced that the low turnout among people aged between 18 and 25—in 2001 it was just 39 per cent—will somehow be increased by the magic of lowering the voting threshold to 16. The argument is that voting can become a habit that a person can become accustomed or even addicted to if only they are exposed to it early enough.
	Those who speak in defence of this proposal often list a series of rights already held by 16 year-olds. I suggest that the right to vote is the exception to the rule. Under close examination, the argument proves to be rather misleading. Almost alrights held by 16 years are given on a case-by-case and conditional basis by parents, employers and other adults who remain responsible. Parents retain the responsibility over whether their 16 year-old child marries, what their religion is, and what they can do with their property. Companies make the decision on whether to allow a 16 year-old to become a director, and the Armed Forces can decide to give a 16 year-old a very restricted services role. As it stands, a young person considered to be sufficiently mature can be given certain choices, yet it is proposed here to make them bear full responsibility for the consequences of this choice. For example, a 16 year-old is not considered to have reached the age of sufficient capacity for civil proceedings. That is how it should be. Many 16 year-olds, however mature, financially astute or well educated, may not at that age be able to judge what is in their best interests. If that is the case when drawing up a contract, how much more relevant is it to voting in an election? We do not believe that 16 year-olds should bear the full responsibility of the right to vote.
	We warmly welcome the rising voice of young people through organisations such as youth councils and youth parliaments, as we have in Essex, and hope that their unique experiences will continue to bear weight with those who make decisions that affect their lives. The idea that young people should be seen and not heard is one that long ago ceased to have any relevance. It is also wonderful that large numbers of young people look forward to voting and being able to choose the government of their country. But we do not want to force that responsibility on to those who in so many other areas are judged as not yet able to make important decisions that affect their lives. We would rather allow young people the opportunity to enjoy their youth and protect them from the difficult decisions that adults must make until they ready to do so. We do not support the amendment.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have much sympathy with both of the speeches we have heard so far. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, except to point out that my three year-old appears to have plenty of her own mind about her. One does not have to wait for young people to reach the age of 16 before that characteristic can be found. The question here is at what age should we transfer responsibility to young people. My argument for giving the vote to 16 year-olds is that we should be consistent and confer voting rights early rather than late. That would be consistent because an awful lot of responsibilities are landed on a young person's shoulder at the age of 16. If we are going to pass over to them life-changing decisions about marriage, sex or joining the Armed Forces—decisions that have real consequences in their lives, not to speak of the right to leave home—then why should we deny them the right to vote? What is so dangerous and difficult about voting that puts it above those other decisions?
	I know that we are not going to carry the argument today, but I hope that it is a cause that we will continue to press whenever we get the opportunity. We ought to recognise the logic of our own position; if we are going to say that 18 is the age when people should vote, then we ought to be much more merciful to the young. We ought to be much more supportive of the young when it comes to other measures by which we place responsibility upon them and take responsibilities away from parents. So many things have happened in the past 10 years, while I have been in this place, that have taken 16 as the age—indeed, when it comes to criminal responsibility, down to 10, if I remember correctly—that voting is something that should come in early. It might even have some of the good consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says it would.
	I have an amendment in this group, Amendment No. 54, which proposes that we should be able to elect 16 year-olds—not that they should be able to vote, but that we should be able to elect them. This follows an argument that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made in Committee and that my noble friend on the Front Bench made again today, particularly in relation to companies. Companies have the right to choose a 16 year-old. Therefore, it is alright to be a company director at 16—and, golly, think of the privileges, powers and responsibilities that come with being a company director. Companies would elect a 16 year-old because that particular 16 year-old has all the qualities needed to take on those responsibilities. In the sense of any substantial company, that is true, but you can get all the privileges that go with a company and being a company director by buying a company off the shelf for £100—let alone trading on eBay. You become entitled to limited liability and make yourself a company director on your 16th birthday. If that is not a level of responsibility greater than that required to vote then I do not know what is.
	First, I do not agree with the argument. But, secondly, if that is the argument that carries the day, then why not allow 16 year-olds to be elected? We all know that there are 16 year-olds out there who are quite capable of doing the job, so let us give them a chance.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 56 to 62 and 133 as well.
	The Government are tabling these amendments following robust debates in both your Lordships' House and the other place. As I said in Grand Committee, the Government were not wedded to the four-month period, and I am pleased that we have worked together and achieved consensus on this issue.
	The issue we were trying to address by introducing the four-month period for candidates' election expenses was that of unregulated spending taking place in advance of the candidate's elections expenses period beginning, and not being counted towards the candidate's limit. These amendments will revert back to the current situation in respect of the length of the candidate's election expenses period.
	A candidate's election expenses will count against his or her statutory expenditure limit from the point at which he or she becomes a candidate. In the case of a candidate at a general election, that is the period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In the case of a local election, it is from the last date for publication of the notice of election until polling day. The amendments will not affect the useful provisions in Clauses 29 and 31 which clarify the scope of activity by unauthorised third parties under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and what counts as election expenses for candidates.
	We recognise that the Bill does not address the problem of unregulated amounts of money being spent by candidates in the months or weeks leading up to the point at which a general election is called. We know how much more sophisticated we have become in political campaigning and how much more effort we invest in campaigning in marginal seats. There is an issue about potentially large amounts of money being spent that cannot be recorded in the most appropriate way. We have not been able to come up with an early solution to the problem; noble Lords will know that I have been receptive to ideas from any part of your Lordships' House and beyond. However, along with working towards a consensus with the parties and Members of the other place, we have talked to Sir Hayden Phillips who has been asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of party funding.
	It has been confirmed that Sir Hayden's review will extend to looking at the expenses of parties and candidates during an election period. This approach makes sense, in that all facets of party funding and election spending will be examined across the piece. I am sure that with this comprehensive approach, we will be able to find a solution to the problem. I know, too, that Sir Hayden will welcome any input from noble Lords who wish to contribute to the review on this and other related matters. Therefore, we have removed the provisions from the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have done this after listening to their views. We look forward to Sir Hayden's recommendations. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 82 and Amendments Nos. 127, 129, 131, 140, 141 and 143, which are consequential to the main amendments. All of these are amendments to the provisions in the Bill which introduce a system of electoral observation into UK electoral law. As noble Lords may be aware, the UK is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose office, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has responsibility for sending teams of international observers to elections. However, the UK itself has previously had no official method for international or domestic observers to attend election proceedings with the UK.
	UK Governments have received criticism for this from other member states of the OSCE, and from the OSCE itself. Clause 33 gives legal effect to recommendations of the Electoral Commission and other electoral observation experts, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It was intended to bring the UK into line with many newer democracies by giving independent electoral observers the right to observe proceedings and working practices, and to bring greater transparency to the electoral system, in line with international electoral practice.
	However, the UK Government have received representations that suggested the provisions of Clause 33 did not in fact reflect the legislation of other states, and did not go far enough to ensure that our elections could be observed freely and objectively. We have accepted these arguments, and therefore have tabled the following amendments. Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 remove the requirement for representatives of the Electoral Commission to apply for the permission of a returning officer to observe proceedings at an election or of a counting officer to observe proceedings at a referendum.
	As part of the removal of the above requirement, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places they intend to observe, or the time they will arrive, but will be subject to any existing enactments that regulate attendance at election proceedings. Amendments Nos. 66, 67, and 68 make changes similar to Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, but in respect of the Electoral Commission representatives' rights to observe the working practices of election officials. For example, the day-to-day activities of an elections office during the annual canvass period.
	Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 remove the requirement of accredited individual observers to apply for the permission of the returning officer or counting officer to attend proceedings at the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers, proceedings at the poll and proceedings at the count. They also remove the ability of an election official to revoke their permission at any time, with reasons. Any removal of accreditation would be by the Electoral Commission, giving reasons for that revocation. As part of the removal of the above requirement, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places they intend to observe, or the time they will arrive.
	Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 make similar provisions to Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 for organisations that wish to send official observers. Once an organisation has been accredited, it may send delegates to election proceedings without the need to apply for the permission of the relevant electoral officer. There are two caveats to these amendments: first, the Electoral Commission may specify a maximum number of delegates that may attend any single election proceeding; and, secondly, the Electoral Commission may revoke an organisation's observer accreditation, giving reasons.
	Amendment No. 79 adds new Section 6DA, which provides local electoral officers with certain safeguards to protect the effective and proper conduct of election proceedings from either an unintended set of circumstances arising because of the presence of observers, or from a deliberate act of an observer to abuse or disrupt the electoral process. In particular, an electoral officer may limit the number of observers allowed to attend an election proceeding at any one time, or revoke an observer's entitlement to be present at an election proceeding should that observer misconduct himself; for example, by deliberately disrupting proceedings. These safeguards do not affect any other power an electoral officer may already have to maintain order at election proceedings. Amendment No. 79 is needed to provide electoral officers with the powers to protect the integrity and proper conduct of the electoral process. Without such safeguards, election proceedings could be open to abuse by an observer whose motives for attending may turn out not to be the legitimate, objective scrutiny of elections.
	Amendment No. 80 removes paragraphs (c) and (d) from Section 6E, which provided that the commission's code of practice for observers and electoral officers should contain guidance to election officials as to the granting and revoking of an observer's permission to attend election proceedings. The previous amendments I have described mean that it is no longer necessary to do that. This amendment replaces these paragraphs with new paragraphs 6E(2)(c), (d) and (da), which provide that the code of practice should include guidance to electoral officers about the exercise of their powers to maintain order at election proceedings and revoke an observer's entitlement to attend, as indicated by Amendment No. 72. It also provides that guidance should be included about the other powers electoral officers may have to regulate attendance at election proceedings.
	Amendment No. 81 inserts a reference to new Section 6DA into proposed Section 6E(7) of the Bill. It sets out who should have regard to the code when exercising their functions. Amendment No. 82 simply replaces a reference to "returning officers" within the list of persons who should have regard to the code of practice with a reference to relevant officers, as listed under 6DA.
	Amendments Nos. 127, 129, 131, 140, 141 and 143 make the necessary consequential changes to the rules for the conduct of local elections in England and Wales, thereby making consequential changes to the observer provisions in Schedule 1 of the Bill. I hope that that explanation gives noble Lords enough detail about what the amendments are seeking to do, and I hope that noble Lords will feel that they are appropriate and able to support them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. These amendments seek to fulfil a commitment made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs on 17 November during the Committee stage of the Bill. It involved allowing us to provide for piloting at a local level of photos on ballot papers and, should a subsequent evaluation prove positive, the amendments also allow for roll-out at UK parliamentary and local elections and by-elections.
	The Electoral Commission supports this piloting provision and understands the need to consult further ahead of piloting. There was a degree of concern in the other place about the use of touched-up photos and the tendency for candidates to prefer to use older photos. Indeed—this would not happen in your Lordships' House, of course—in the other place, the honourable Member for Somerton and Frome, David Heath, pointed out that some reference books to the House showed how some people seemed to,
	"have aged remarkably little since the late 1950s".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/05; col. 114.]
	I reassure my noble Lords that before we move to roll out such a system we would consult with stakeholders and political parties to ensure that all parties are in agreement when piloting this significant change to the ballot paper. That is a firm commitment.
	The amendments take the form of three new clauses after Clause 35, replacement of counterfoils in part 6 ballot papers. Amendment No. 84 permits the piloting of the use of photographs of candidates on ballot papers. Amendment No. 85 requires the Electoral Commission to evaluate the operation of the order. Amendment No. 86 provides that where a pilot has taken place and been evaluated and the Secretary of State thinks that it would be desirable for similar provision to that made in the pilot order to be made on a general and permanent basis, he may make a further order revising the election rules for UK parliamentary and local elections.
	The power to make a pilot order under Amendment No. 84 can be exercised by the Secretary of State only in relation to local elections and following an application from the relevant local authority to run a pilot scheme. The Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission before making the order. The power to make a rollout order under Amendment No. 86 can be exercised only in relation to local government and UK parliamentary elections and by-elections. Again, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission, and the power to make an order would be by the affirmative resolution process.
	The power to make an order under Amendment No. 86 includes the power for the Secretary of State to create or extend a criminal offence. That power is limited so the Secretary of State cannot create an offence punishable on conviction or indictment with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and a summary conviction with a term exceeding 51 weeks or with a fine exceeding the statutory minimum.
	I hope noble Lords will support these amendments. If the consultation on this issue, which we will be undertaking before we do anything else, finds that the use of photographs on ballot papers might be of benefit to voters, particularly perhaps those with learning or literacy difficulties, it would be sensible to provide the ability to test it out. On that basis, I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope to have a response to the noble Lord's final point, because it is a fair question.
	The noble Lord approaches this issue in exactly the right spirit. We want to talk to special interest groups and organisations representing people with disabilities and others to see whether there is merit in this proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has indicated, there are downsides to this that may mean we find, when we consult, that this proposal does not go anywhere. That is why I was careful to say we would be consulting before we did anything. If we did not take the opportunity in the Bill to make the provisions to be able to try out this idea, then consulted and found that people felt there were good reasons to test it, that would be a pity. We could not table such amendments in Grand Committee, I am told, because these are very complicated provisions. I presume parliamentary counsel did not have them ready in time.
	This matter is worth consulting on, and, if it has merit, testing out. The noble Baroness will be one of the people consulted on it, as will the political parties. Clearly, if there is not merit in this, it will not be pursued. If there is merit in trying it out, let us do so and see what happens. It is as simple as that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise. I have misplaced the papers. This amendment was originally tabled in a group with Amendment No. 22 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord removed his amendments from that group in order that I could move mine because they achieved the same thing, but I would argue that mine did so in a better way. In moving Amendment No. 87 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 157.
	I am pleased to be able to bring forward these amendments. They remove the provision in electoral law which stipulates that mental health patients who are detained under civil powers must vote at elections either by post or proxy. In future such people will not be prevented by electoral law from voting in person in polling stations. I agree with noble Lords who discussed this in Committee that this restriction cannot be justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows, his Amendment No. 22 did not quite achieve what was necessary, hence my bringing forward these amendments.
	If a person is considered by a doctor well enough to be absent from the hospital, we believe he or she should not be prevented from voting in person. From a practical viewpoint it is not possible to enforce the restriction, as presiding officers at polling stations would not know whether a person is a detained mental health patient, so would not know if such a person were to present themselves at a polling station to vote. Patients can be given permission to be absent from the hospital for a short or long-term period, and there will be a significant number of people who are technically detained but in reality living in the community.
	Our amendment removes paragraph 2(6)(a) from Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000. Additionally, it inserts a new paragraph 2(5A) in Schedule 4, which provides that detained patients may vote in person where they are granted permission to be absent from the hospital and voting in person does not breach any condition that is attached to that condition. Our amendments have been drafted to cover all detained patients who have been granted permission to be absent, not just those who have been given such permission specifically to vote. There may be people who are able to vote in person because they have been given permission to be absent for another purpose; for example, they are allowed out every day. The amendment reflects the fact that some patients with permission to be absent from hospital could conceivably be unable to vote in person because of the conditions on which they are granted the permission. We would not want electoral law to interfere with conditions imposed by clinicians for the benefit of patients' health and safety or the protection of other people. New paragraph (2)(5A) continues to give detained patients the option to vote by post or proxy if they wish to do so.
	In moving these amendments there are two points I want to make clear. First, the amendments will not mean that detained patients are entitled to be given permission to be absent from hospital in order to go and vote. The granting of such permission must remain a clinical decision based on the patient's condition. Secondly, the amendments cannot and do not impose any requirement on hospitals to provide escorts for detained patients to enable them to vote in person at a polling station. As noble Lords will appreciate, hospitals may not have sufficient resources to provide such a service, and it would be completely inappropriate to expect them to do so.
	People who are registered to vote in person can apply to vote by post up until 11 days before the polling day. If on the polling day the patient is unfit to go out and vote, he or she would not instead be able to vote by post because, of course, the deadline would have passed. However, regulations passed in March this year include new provisions that allow, in certain limited circumstances, applications for a proxy vote to be cast up until 5 pm on polling day. We plan to make similar provisions for detained mental health patients who, for medical reasons, are unable to go to the polling station. Any amendments to the regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 89, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 90 to 93.
	These amendments will help to improve access to the electoral process by certain groups of electors who previously have had difficulties in obtaining documents in formats appropriate to their needs. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, for raising this issue in Grand Committee. I hope that the amendments address the concerns that they quite rightly raised.
	Clause 36 inserts new Section 199B into the Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides for the translation of election documents, apart from nominations and ballot papers, into different languages and different formats at the electoral officer's discretion.
	Amendment No. 89 would replace subsection (2) of Clause 36 with new subsections (2) and (2A). Amendment No. 90 replaces subsection (2) of Clause 36 with new subsections (2) and (2A). Currently, subsection (2) provides that election officials may provide documents in other formats as they think appropriate, those formats being specified as Braille, other languages and graphical representations. The requirement of election officials to provide documents is amended to replace "may" with "must as he thinks appropriate", thus changing the requirement on election officials to provide documents in alternative formats where necessary, and emphasising the importance of extending access to the electoral process for all eligible voters. It makes clear to electoral officers that where electors require documents in specific formats due to their particular needs, electoral officers should make every effort to accommodate those requirements.
	A new paragraph is inserted that gives electoral officials a general power to produce documents in formats other than Braille, other languages and graphical representations. It is designed to accommodate those electors who may not otherwise have reasonable access to the information. For example, documents could include large print. A new subsection (2A) is inserted, which specifies that electoral officials can provide documents in an audible format, which could be by means of a tape or simply by being read to an elector by an election official.
	Amendment No. 91 simply replaces a further reference to subsection (2) with the new subsections that I have already described.
	I turn to Clause 37, which substitutes a new rule 24 of the parliamentary election rules, contained in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. The new rule 24 specifies the materials that should be issued by the returning officers to those entitled to vote by post. It allows him to include guidance on how to access translations or graphical representations.
	Amendment No. 92 changes subsection (2) of Clause 37 to strengthen the requirement of election officials to provide directions and guidance to polls or voters in other formats. The change from "may as he thinks appropriate" to "must as he thinks appropriate" is similar to the changes made in Clause 36.
	Amendment No. 93 extends the formats in which directions and guidance to polls and voters can be provided to include audible forms, and provides a general power to election officials to produce, as appropriate, directions and guidance in any format that may assist electors.
	Finally, I should add that my officials have sent copies of these amendments to the Disability Rights Commission for its comments. The commission has confirmed that it and its chairman, Bert Massey, are strongly supportive of these changes. I therefore hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Rennard and I tabled a number of amendments that arose out of suggestions made by the Disability Rights Commission, which was not satisfied that the existing procedure dealt adequately with the problems of a number of people with different kinds of disabilities. I accept that our amendments put forward in Grand Committee were, in some respects, not wholly satisfactory. Therefore, we were very content that the matter should be dealt with by parliamentary counsel, who came up with improved versions, which dealt with some of the problems that our original amendments would have created. We understand that these amendments have been negotiated and discussed with the Disability Rights Commission, which is satisfied with them. Since it was always or intention to help the Disability Rights Commission in this matter, we are entirely happy to approve amendments that have also been approved by that commission. We therefore welcome these amendments fully and look forward to their inclusion on the face of the Bill.

Lord Harrison: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their follow-up to the Commission for Africa's report they will assess the human and economic cost of road traffic damage, injuries and deaths in developing countries.
	My Lords, I have always believed that building roads in developing countries is a good development tool. As a member of the ASEAN delegation of the European Parliament, I remember regaling villagers in far-flung parts of the Philippines and Indochina concerning the "roads to markets" building schemes and the benefits that would derive therefrom. More recently, I recall reading the OECD reports on the millennium goals, which show that, by providing access for young people to get to schools, village roads have helped to promote education. Moroccan girls have doubled their participation because of such road-building schemes. Indeed, the quality and delivery of ante-natal care has been improved by good paved urban and rural roads.
	However, I confess to my ignorance. There is a downside to road building: building without considering road safety can lead to deaths and injuries and, therefore, economic setbacks. We need roads, but we also need road safety. I am not alone in my ignorance. Road safety is a neglected issue that has not been mentioned by the Commission for Africa, the Gleneagles G8 summit or in the millennium development goals, despite being a major contributor to mortality and poverty. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether, with her great experience of the European Union and the European Commission, especially the transport department, she can report that the EU has thoroughly understood the issue.
	These are the facts: 3,000 people are killed every day on the world's roads, including 500 children. Some 85 per cent of those are in developing countries. Some 50 million are injured every year—15 million of them seriously, thereby presenting a burden on families and economies alike. Although there have been dramatic falls in road deaths in the developed world in the past 30 years—here, in the UK, they have halved—in the developing world, huge increases have taken place. In Botswana, the increase has been 380 per cent In the huge, thriving economy of China, the rise has been 240 per cent Only by the mid-century are those road deaths forecast to begin to decline.
	We need new roads to be safe, not only for humanitarian reasons but because of the economic costs. Road traffic injuries cost developing countries an estimated $65 billion to $100 billion a year—otherwise expressed as 5 per cent of GDP. Astonishingly, those figures does not compare well with the total overseas aid budget given to the developing world of $106 billion.
	Road deaths and injuries are undoubtedly worst in Africa—it has 2.5 per cent of the world's registered vehicles, but 10 per cent of road traffic fatalities: a ratio of 4 to 1. The computed costs to GNP vary in parts of Africa—2.3 per cent in South Africa and 5 per cent in Kenya and Malawi. We also know that road traffic injuries are a major factor in impoverishing people. Recent reports show that in Bangalore, 50 per cent of families suffering road crash bereavement later fell into poverty, partly because of funeral and medical costs that might amount to many months' wages, but also, tellingly, because of the loss of the bread winner. In Kenya, 75 per cent of road traffic injuries are sustained by the economically active young adults who are sorely needed by the country to develop its economy.
	What is the international community doing about it? Recent UN General Assembly resolutions recognise the global road safety crisis, and the UN has given responsibility to the WHO to co-ordinate action. The World Bank recently launched the global road safety facility to combat the annual 1.2 million road deaths, funded $5 million each from the World Bank and the FIA Foundation and another $1 million from the Dutch Government. The global road safety facility's ultimate aim is to enable low- and middle-income countries to develop and implement their own road safety governance systems, capacity and programmes. Road safety can be improved by better road design, proper signage, improving—or, indeed, introducing for the first time—driving tests, improving road safety education and better enforcement of the law.
	What more should be done by the international community and by the UK Government, who have an excellent record on regular development issues? The G8 agreed in 2005 to establish the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, which will support the short-term action plan prepared by NePAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That includes $1.2 billion for building roads, but the road safety component is only $20 million. Interestingly, that contrasts sharply with the World Bank's internal guidelines, which state that some 10 per cent of road programmes should have earmarked measures for road safety. If that were done, instead, that $20 million would become a realistic $120 million.
	There is also an urgent need for increased donor support for road safety knowledge transfer and improved technical capacity at both individual country level and regional level, which might be handled by the African national bank and the United Nations' Economic Commission for Africa. The Commission for Africa has suggested building 150,000 kilometres of new roads in Africa in the coming decade, but experience in south-east Asia suggests that that could be fraught with problems unless roads are designed, built, managed and maintained with road safety prominent and integrated into them. Increased road deaths should not be a legacy for the Commission for Africa or the Prime Minister, who chaired the G8 summit.
	In a few weeks the Commission for Global Road Safety, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who is unable to be here tonight, will publish a new report addressing the international community's response. Its purpose is to get the international community to recognise global road safety as a serious political and financial issue that is comparable to other major health and development issues, such as malaria and defeating the spread of TB. I understand that a public awareness campaign, whose slogan will be "Make Roads Safe", will be launched with the report's publication.
	What can the UK Government do? They can ensure that road safety is a key part of any follow-up to the Commission for Africa's report. They can support the "Make Roads Safe" campaign and, perhaps, include global road safety on the agenda for a future G8 meeting. The Government can play an even more active role by encouraging the multilateral lending institutions to include global road safety components in all road projects systematically; perhaps my noble friend can consult the Chancellor on that. DfID could ensure that, in any road project, the World Bank's guideline that a minimum 10 per cent should be included for road safety is met. DfID could also provide significant support for the new global road safety facility, hosted by the World Bank. Will my noble friend also ask the Department for Transport to ensure that its expertise is mobilised to help in this important area?
	We have an opportunity to succeed, and I point to Chile, in which, in 1993, after a shocking rise in road deaths and injuries, a presidential decree instituted a national commission for road safety. Education, engineering and enforcement of the law were key issues. I am pleased to say that, as a result, road deaths and injuries have fallen considerably in that country.
	I conclude by adapting William Blake's aphorism, whereby the road of folly,
	"leads to the palace of wisdom".
	It is time that we eliminated the folly of building new roads in developing countries without proper road safety flanking measures. Only in that way will we arrive at the palace of wisdom to construct a safer and more prosperous world in which all its citizens can survive and succeed.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, congratulate to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing this debate on an issue described by Kofi Annan as a,
	"neglected and growing public health and development issue",
	which, despite the horrifying statistics that we have heard today, remains one of the least popular in terms of global research investment. It was a topic the Government failed to address in their report on their implementation of the Africa Commission's recommendations published in March this year, but one we trust they will correct.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, highlighted, road safety is not necessarily the first thing that springs to mind when we discuss developing countries and their attempts to meet the millennium development goals. We tend to focus on points ranging from AIDS, to civil war, empowerment and democracy. However, road traffic incidents have an obvious and significant effect not only in human terms, but also in economic and productivity terms. Eighty per cent of all road traffic deaths that occur each year are in developing countries. If we break that down, the result is more than 750,000 deaths in countries that own only 40 per cent of the world's motor vehicles. Another 20 million to 50 million people suffer disabilities due to injuries incurred during traffic accidents.
	The WHO predicts that while RTIs were the tenth leading cause of premature death in 1990, which is bad enough in itself, this will rise to third position by 2020, above HIV/AIDS—above a health issue that has been described in this Chamber and elsewhere as the scourge of Africa.
	This is a most sobering thought. On the economic side, the Task Force for Child Survival and Development in the US states that 40,000 deaths can cost the equivalent of $300 billion. Overall, in developing countries, the cost of crashes has been estimated to be 1 to 3 per cent of GNP.
	On a more personal level, organisations such as RoadPeace highlighted how a road death or disability in the family is often the tipping point, especially if the person was the primary breadwinner. RoadPeace states that that was the case for more than 50 per cent of people in two rural provinces in India, where families have been tipped into extreme poverty. It is clear that cutting down on RTI can help keep people out of poverty.
	It is frustrating, as so many noble Lords have mentioned, that so much of this is easily avoidable, and more often than not, by simple, affordable changes—even for developing countries—that can have a significant effect; for example, public awareness that you need to wear seatbelts, or helmets if you are on a bicycle, and the dangers of drink/driving.
	RTIs were a major problem in Bulgaria—not a developing country, but I hope soon a successful accession country to the European Union. A friend of mine, who runs the Free and Democratic Bulgaria Foundation, set up a conference recently to look into exactly this important subject as 20,000 people had died in the past 10 years through unskilled drivers, the state of the roads and old vehicles. It secured for the conference Finnish and Swedish specialists, as they have the best record in Europe, combined with Members of Parliament, police and experts who looked into and discussed fresh ideas for enforcing highway laws, police training, penalties for drivers and so forth. The result has proved a tremendous success. It worked and the numbers dramatically decreased. Surely, road management could be incorporated into our ideas of good governance.
	What representations have Her Majesty's Government made on these issues to the governments of the developing countries to which DfID contributes? Do Her Majesty's Government support the World Road Safety Alliance's call for the establishment of international standards for traffic enforcement, traffic education and engineering?
	Many areas have been identified as contributing to the high incidence of RTIs. I will not repeat them all now, but one of interest was the lack of restrictions on the import of dilapidated or stolen cars. What standards do we insist on for vehicles that are exported from our country; what checks are made?
	We welcomed the moves made by the United Nations and the World Bank to get the ball rolling on this topic in 2004. I also commend the Government on their funding of the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa. I await, like the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the Commission for Global Road Safety report next month with anticipation, but I hope that the Minister's department has not been holding back on this issue when there are so many clear simple changes we can support and suggest.
	The Commission for Global Road Safety website has a very good short six-minute film on its work. If noble Lords have not seen, I high recommend it. The message is clear: it is time for all governments, in both developed and developing countries, to say that enough is enough.
	By tackling the problems of road traffic damage, injuries and deaths, we cannot only help developing countries towards the MDGs but also make certain that the relief Her Majesty's Government provide goes to other less easily resolved problems that face those in the poverty trap.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for having secured this important debate, not least because it brings together two issues about which I care very deeply; that is, transport and road safety and development. I thank all who have contributed to this lively discussion. I believe it is critical for developing countries.
	The Government believe that the provision of infrastructure is essential for development. It is an engine for economic growth in developing countries. Safe, reliable transport systems are crucial if poor people are to get to markets, health clinics, and schools. But roads of course have to be safe; and safe roads, as noble Lords have pointed out, do not cost more to design and to build.
	There can be no doubt that the human cost of road accidents is large. We have heard many statistics this evening. I add one: in Bangladesh, in the last year 4,000 deaths and over 20,000 injuries could have been prevented with more effective policies for road safety. In Kenya there were over 3,000 deaths last year; and in Nigeria over 10,000. Indeed, 1 per cent of the African population is injured in traffic-related accidents every year. It is absolutely horrific.
	I am pleased to report that DfID has already funded some research that specifically addresses the noble Lord's question. It has been undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, or TRL, based here in the UK. In answer to my noble friend, it is working closely with the European Commission and using its transport expertise. As a result, the TRL and DfID have been able to play a major role in assessing the human and economic cost of damage, injuries and deaths in the developing world. The research shows that, when compared with the number of vehicles on the road, African countries have the highest death rates worldwide. In 2004 there was one death for every 10,000 vehicles licensed in Great Britain, but at least seven African countries show death rates in excess of 100 for every 10,000 vehicles. Due to under reporting and unreliable statistics, the actual death rate is sure to be much higher. The TRL has produced a number of overseas road notes and reports for developing country governments.
	I note the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Hayman about twinning and the support for transport workers in their own countries sharing knowledge and expertise. That is an excellent idea. I will take it back to the department. However, I can assure noble Lords that we are already sharing expertise and experience gained not just at a national level but also from local authorities, and we are working with government and authorities in developing countries on the basis of the expertise we already have.
	Her Majesty's Government warmly welcomes the invaluable work being undertaken by the Commission for Road Safety, chaired by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has agreed to add his support should international road safety be included in a future G8 communiqué, and I know that that issue is being raised.
	Accidents have a particular impact on poverty. Indeed, DfID has published a report specifically about the impact of road crashes on the poor. It is worth pointing out that half of those killed in road accidents in Africa are pedestrians, whereas in Europe it would be less than one-fifth. Road accidents have the same effect as a debilitating illness: they drive families into poverty, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
	It is not all doom and gloom, however, and there is hope relating to road safety. The examples of Bulgaria and Chile have been mentioned this evening. In addition, however, a World Bank project in Estonia saw a 26 per cent reduction in fatalities in 2003 through acting and simple road safety techniques. As noble Lords have said, we do not need always to strive for complex answers; simple answers can truly improve road traffic accident levels in developing countries.
	However, issues will become more serious if Africa, in particular, needs more infrastructure. At present, more infrastructure often means more accidents. My noble friend Lord Harrison asked about the follow-up to the Commission for Africa. The commission's report identified many issues contributing to Africa's entrenched poverty and makes recommendations for some ways forward. Recognising the inextricable link between investment in infrastructure and pro-poor growth, one recommendation was for an additional US$20 billion a year investment in infrastructure in Africa.
	The money is needed to upgrade rural roads and slums, but also to enable greater integration of Africa's regions and to ensure that Africa can break into world markets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, pointed out, the millennium development goals simply cannot be achieved without improved infrastructure.
	An Infrastructure Consortium for Africa has therefore been established, to which the UK has committed US$20 million. Of course, it is vital that road infrastructure projects, supported by multilateral lending institutions and promoted through initiatives such as the Africa Infrastructure Consortium, integrate road safety issues, as my noble friend Lord Harrison suggested.
	In response to my noble friend Lord Anderson, of course it is absolutely right that the impetus for bringing about change in Africa must continue. Therefore, the Government have supported the establishment of effective monitoring processes at international and national level, to maintain momentum in ensuring that Governments are held to account and are taking forward the agenda set by the Africa commission and agreed at Gleneagles. I am pleased to say that we have ratified the Anti-corruption Convention.
	My noble friend Lord Triesman is the Minister for Africa, and he does a splendid job. Of course, he is a Minister for other things, but his commitment to Africa is clear and I know that it will continue.
	In respect of our posts in Africa and the fact that we are closing one or two posts, we must modernise our network. The fact that we have closed some posts does not mean that we have not increased our resources in other posts. For example, we have recently deployed additional diplomatic staff in Pretoria, Kinshasa, Khartoum, Kigali and Addis Ababa. We are taking forward the ARMS treaty: the Government are at the forefront of that.
	Noble Lords will agree that it is not for the UK alone to give attention to the issue of road safety in developing countries. If we are really to make a difference, our approach must be one of wider international effort. Road safety is a shared responsibility. As the World Health Organisation and the World Bank have said:
	"Reducing the risk in the world's road traffic systems requires commitment and informed decision-making by government, industry, non-governmental organisations and international agencies—and participation by people from many different disciplines".
	That is why DFID works in partnership through a range of international organisations and networks. Our aim is to ensure a joined-up and robust approach to road safety.
	The first issue, as my noble friend Lord Harrison, supported by others, suggested, is to raise awareness. Hence the key international bodies are the World Health Organisation and the World Bank. They jointly produced the World report on road traffic injury prevention, which provides us with a comprehensive overview of the magnitude, risk factors and impact of road crashes. It gives statistics, including country-specific data; it discusses economic and human costs; and it debates policy issues. That authoritative publication, together with the WHO's five-year strategy for road traffic injury protection, leads the way for multinational co-ordination.
	The second issue is to ensure that where road investments are made they are accompanied by road safety measures. Those should include design, education and enforcement. New designs can incorporate the recommendations and guidelines that have been developed by transport research organisations such as our TRL in the UK.
	DfID sees its role as supporting these international initiatives. It is funding the World Bank's guide to good practice in road safety and road safety modules in the World Bank's road maintenance programme. Likewise, it has supported a study by the Asian Development Bank of the socio-economic costs of road accidents. DfID's work to build better public institutions in developing countries is the building block to achieving road safety through better engineering, enforcement and education. We know from experience that the three Es, as they are known, are the best way to bring about real improvement in road safety.
	As my noble friend Lord Simon suggested, road safety needs good governance and effective political leadership. In partnership with other multilateral donors, and, most importantly, developing country Governments themselves, DfID has agreed to better governance in developing countries. There have been initiatives such as the Extractive Industries and Transparency Initiative to reduce corruption in oil, gas and mining industries.
	Many noble Lords have mentioned the excellent initiative of DfID's central research department to set up a Global Transport Knowledge Partnership with £2 million of funding. Around the world, a great deal is known about how to build and maintain roads—roads that will last and that will be safe. Many planners and engineers in developing countries do not have access to that knowledge. The Global Transport Knowledge Partnership has a mandate to gather and disseminate good transport knowledge. Crucially, that includes knowledge about how to promote road safety. We hope that the partnership will become a one-stop service of good practice for use by transport institutions around the developing world. I trust that DfID will continue to support it.
	My noble friend Lord Harrison and others spoke about the new global road safety facility and asked whether DfID is supporting it. We are not financially supporting the facility, because we believe that a new, separate facility, although interesting, is not absolutely necessary. We believe that, instead, efforts should focus on strengthening existing programmes, which include the global road safety partnership, managed by the Red Cross, and the World Bank's sub-Saharan Africa transport programmes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised a couple of issues to which I have not replied. I assure her that I shall write to her.
	In conclusion, I must of course thank again all those who contributed to this short but very important debate. I should stress that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting and encouraging those who are building roads in Africa and other developing countries to ensure that we avoid the folly of doing so without taking the appropriate road safety measures.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who I understand has been unavoidably detained.
	Since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 there has been a significant constitutional change in so far as assemblies established within the past 10 years have now developed into stable and important institutions of democracy. I assure your Lordships that this amendment is necessary not simply because the electoral success of my own political party at the last general election was less than enviable—I hope that is but a temporary aberration—but because it is essential that no political party contributing positively to the democratic process should be disadvantaged.
	This amendment is in two parts. The first deals with the conditions applied to parties that qualify for political development grants. Whereas the qualification was formerly to have two Members in the House of Commons who had made and subscribed to the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1886, it is now important that we should recognise the significance of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment No. 105 thus adds a comparable provision in respect of those assemblies to Section 12 of the 2000 Act.
	The amendment would also ensure that the anomaly currently allowing Sinn Fein, which does not participate in the business of the House of Commons, to benefit from parliamentary allowances and Short money while my party—the Ulster Unionist Party—which has sacrificed a great deal, including electoral success, in its determination to implement the 1998 Belfast agreement and continues to do so, no longer qualifies on the basis of its current representation in the House of Commons. The Electoral Commission has already recognised the anomaly and, in effect, supports the concept of making amends. Over the next six months, the Ulster Unionist Party will carry a huge responsibility as a major participant in what has just been initiated today: the new Northern Ireland Assembly negotiations. Potentially, the party will be the holder of three ministerial posts in any future assembly in Northern Ireland. Therein lies the reason why there should be a change to the qualification in respect of political parties.
	I will not waste the time of the House by going into the detail of the second part of the amendment. It relates to the Schedule to the Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme) Order 2006 and seeks to make provision for the Ulster Unionist Party to be added to the list of parties that are registered and for other consequential issues that require to be put in order. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dubs. He is unavoidably detained on something important. I shall not go into the detail of how policy development grants work because noble Lords are fully aware of them, particularly those who have been affected in the way indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
	As I said in Grand Committee, although we have been working with the Electoral Commission, we have not been to find a workable scheme that would deliver a fair and equitable sharing of resources. I shall reiterate what I said then. The policy development grant scheme will be considered in the review by Sir Hayden Phillips. That review will look at the broader and more important questions about political party funding, and its terms of reference include the requirement,
	"to examine the case for state funding and to consider the transparency of party funding".
	The policy development grant scheme will therefore be included in the overall context of Sir Hayden's review, and the terms of reference further state that it will,
	"work closely with stakeholders, including especially the political parties".
	I know that Sir Hayden has it in mind to contact in the very near future the political parties represented at Westminster, the European Parliament and the devolved authorities. I encourage noble Lords themselves to make contact with Sir Hayden and to become fully involved in the review, particularly on this important matter.
	Sir Hayden has been asked to report to the Government by the end of December 2006 with recommendations for any changes to the current arrangements which, as far as possible, have been agreed between the political parties. I hope therefore that noble Lords will see a resolution on the issue before too long. On that basis, I hope too that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed. I am mindful not only of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont but of the representations that he has made and, indeed, of the frustration that he feels about the issue. Were he here, I would have made specific reference to the meetings that he has had, where he has forcefully put forward his case. I hope that he too will participate fully with Sir Hayden on this important question.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 106, I also wish to speak, with the leave of the House, to Amendments Nos. 108, 110 and 113. This group of amendments is of some significance. I raised the issue Grand Committee, but I am bringing it back again, somewhat late in the evening.
	We welcome the Government's proposals for disclosure of the names of lenders. There is, however, one point on which I find the Government's proposals not satisfactory; that is, the failure to require repayment of a loan made by someone who was not at the time of making the loan a political donor.
	I have somewhat revised the amendments tabled at recommitment, and the first change is in Amendment No. 106. I introduced it because I was concerned about the drafting of the new Section 71F of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. My first reading suggested to me that it did not have retrospective effect. In other words, a transaction already entered into was not retrospectively made into a regulated transaction. Other provisions in the following new sections of the 2000 Act in fact imply that Section 71 has retrospective effect, but it is better to have it spelt out in Section 71F itself. The amendments provide that Sections 71I and 71J, to be introduced into the 2000 Act, make any regulated transaction to which an unauthorised participant is a party void and require the loans to be repaid. Of course, I exclude—again by amendment, Amendment No. 113—any retrospective criminal liability.
	The Government have rightly provided that any loan by a permissible donor that is outstanding when Part 4A of the 2000 Act comes into force must be disclosed. In doing so, it overrides the confidentiality clause in the agreement. It follows from that that an outstanding loan made before Part 4A comes into force by a person who is not a political donor should be not only disclosed but repaid and, if not repaid, should be subject to action by the Electoral Commission under Section 71I. Similarly, any guarantee or security given by somebody who is not a permissible donor should be void.
	The deliberate use of loans to avoid disclosure is plainly contrary to the spirit of the 2000 Act. The deliberate use of loans to avoid disclosure and to enable a foreign lender to confer a benefit on a party is doubly contrary to that spirit. In those circumstances, the loan should be repayable—preferably immediately, although I would accept a delay of, say, up to 12 months—even if the lender does not wish to exercise the right to demand repayment.
	When I raised this argument on recommitment, the response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was inadequate. He said:
	"We think the balance is best struck by requiring disclosure but not requiring what may wreak havoc with a party's finances or cause significant prejudice to the individual lender".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 758.]
	I cannot see how an individual lender, frankly, could suffer "significant prejudice" by having the benefit of repayment forced on him or her.
	As to the party in question, unless the loan was expressly made non-repayable for a substantial fixed period, the party has always been faced with the possibility that the loan might be called in at an inconvenient date. My amendment would simply crystallise the existing risk that the party must have taken into account.
	Further, the exemption of loans by foreigners could—in theory, at any rate—apply to loans made between now and the commencement of Clause 61. I accept that the disclosure requirement may make that unlikely because of the adverse publicity for any party that did that, but it is not impossible and it is plainly something that would be ruled out. It is right that there should be an obligation to repay immediately or, at any rate, within a relatively short time after Clause 61 comes into force any loans made to a political party by someone who was not when they made the loan, or at any time subsequently, a permissible donor. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sought to achieve in his amendment on recommitment. It is quite clear that if we were in a position in which someone could produce a donation of £5,000 and a loan of £5,000, we would have created a gap that I would not wish to see created, for all the reasons that your Lordships will recognise. All that I can say is, "If only the noble Lord's amendment did it . . . " The noble Lord required a progress report. My noble and learned friend and I discussed that matter today, and officials are working on it. However, it will require detailed amendments to the new Part 4A of Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act as well as to the existing Part 4 to Schedule 6, which deals with donations. Although it seems a very simple matter on the face of it, it will be very complicated to design an amendment, but we are with the noble Lord in seeking to achieve that as quickly as possible.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly indicated that she had information about Third Reading that I did not have. That is right and proper, too, because it is the hands of the other parties to determine that. I am merely a Minister—I turn up when I am told to. But what I take from all our debates today is a desire that, if we are able to get this Bill out of your Lordships' House in good shape, I should invest time to ensure that we can achieve that. I always live in hope that that means I will not lose anything at later stages and I always do my best to try to accommodate when I can.
	But regarding the loans amendments, which I said I would return to and which are important to all political parties here and in another place, and the service voters, I am under an obligation to do what I said I would do for your Lordships' House. If that means that I need to discuss the possibility of moving Third Reading, I will do so—but in conjunction, of course, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for it will not be in my gift. I hope that if we feel we need a slight delay, we can make that proposal together, so that I can do what I promised to do.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Baroness for that, because this is an important Bill and it is desirable to get it right, even at the cost of a couple of weeks' delay in getting it through your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I very much welcome the idea of consolidation of the legislation on elections, which will include the Representation of the People Act 2000 but not the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, as set out in the amendment. The Government's hyperactivity over the past few years in introducing new legislation has meant that we have had very few consolidation Bills. That is a great pity as the regular consolidation of legislation is of great assistance to everyone who needs to know what the law is at any given time. So I hope that this will come about as soon as possible.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his welcome for the amendment, and I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to whom I pay great tribute for having included discussion on his amendment with this one. I am very pleased to be able to put that on the record.
	The noble Lord will know that we have already had the opportunity to discuss this matter. At present, people have to opt out of the register but, as the noble Lord said, one is never really sure whether people positively use that opportunity or whether some people simply do not read the form. I know that the noble Lord feels passionately about the importance of the register and of it being used for its prime purpose.
	The noble Lord knows, too, that many organisations—businesses and charities—rely very heavily on accessing a huge amount of data about people in order to write to them. I would be concerned about making any change without having the opportunity to consult such organisations as I genuinely do not have the faintest idea what the impact could be. It could be quite severe. It could affect small businesses detrimentally, and it could affect charities which send out mailings, particularly at times of crisis, and receive responses from people who might otherwise not be reached.
	As the noble Lord said, it is right that increasingly there is a move towards opting in. One sees this increasingly when purchases are made on the internet: you have to say positively that you would like to be on the mailing list, as opposed to having to remember to tick a box not to be on the list. That certainly seems to be the direction of travel as I see this issue in the context of data protection.
	I shall consider this matter carefully with my colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry and shall be carrying out some kind of consultation. At this stage, I am not sure whether it will be formal or informal, but I shall get some idea of the impact and implications. I shall keep the noble Lord fully informed about that because I know that it is an area of great interest to him. I hope to be able to come back to him shortly—perhaps formally in writing with a copy in the Library of the House so that other noble Lords can see where we have got to.

Lord Rix: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 132, 139, 148, 151, 152, 154 and 156, which are consequent upon it. I am supported in these amendments by my colleague in the disability field, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am delighted to see him in his place this evening.
	The amendments all relate to what some might call an anomaly and others an outrage in electoral law, which I highlighted at Second Reading. The existing common law relating to elections denies the right to vote to those it refers to as "idiots" and "lunatics". I hope the whole House will agree that such language, when used to refer to people with a learning disability or mental illness, has no place in a modern democracy. I am delighted that the Minister agrees with me, and am grateful to her for indicating her support for these amendments and for the assistance that she and her department have given me in drafting them.
	The changes I propose are of great symbolic and practical importance to people with a learning disability and to other disabled people, who are still subjected to abuse and discrimination—which should be challenged by the law, not enshrined within it. I should declare an interest in this issue as the president of the Royal Mencap Society, an organisation which has campaigned for these changes and which will welcome them wholeheartedly.
	Amendment No. 188 would abolish any common law rule which links a person's incapacity to vote to his mental state. That is what currently ties the language of "idiots" and "lunatics" to electoral law, and has led to disabled people being denied the right to vote as the result of unjustified assumptions about their mental capacity being made be election officials and members of the public. Abolishing the common law rule would make disabled people subject to exactly the same eligibility criteria as everyone else.
	The other amendments clarify the language used about disabled people in election law by replacing the word "incapacity" with "disability". Incapacity is an important concept in the law around disabled people's decision making—as the Minister who last year so ably steered the Mental Capacity Act through the House well knows. Yet it has a different meaning in electoral law, for it means legal disqualification from voting, rather than a physical or mental condition which makes voting difficult. For the purposes of this Bill, it seems best to avoid suggestions that disabled people have any kind of incapacity.
	Disabled people have the right to vote and the right not to be insulted. By accepting these amendments, this House can show its commitment to upholding the equality of disabled people and protecting them from discrimination and abuse. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 149 and 160. These amendments are technical amendments which clarify that certain provisions in the schedules to the Bill do not affect local government elections in Scotland. The amendments add to other provisions already included in the Bill which ensure that current electoral legislation applying to devolved areas in Scotland is not affected by the provisions in the Bill. The amendments therefore ensure that the Bill does not create the possibility of legislation passed in Westminster impacting on devolved matters in Scotland without the proper use of a Sewel Motion.
	Amendments Nos. 147 and 149, which refer to paragraph 114A, act as a signpost to certain amendments contained in Schedule 1 of the Bill which are not to apply for the purposes of Scottish local government elections.
	Amendment No. 160 identifies that certain provisions of the 1983 Act are not to be regarded as having been repealed for the purposes of Scottish local government elections. For example, the reference to Section 75(1) reflects the fact that the Scottish Parliament has competence to legislate regarding the prohibition of third party expenses incurred in connection with Scottish local council elections. The repeal of Section 75(1) contained in Schedule 2 to our Bill is qualified to that extent. I beg to move.

Lord Rix: moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 152:
	Page 117, line 31, at end insert—
	"114A In section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (absent vote at parliamentary elections for an indefinite period), in subsection (2)(b) for "physical incapacity" substitute "disability"."
	Page 117, line 32, leave out "the Representation of the People Act 1985" and insert "that Act"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]